ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology2026
Industry-Reported Financial Relationships Among American Ophthalmology Society Board Members.
Article in Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess financial disclosures of American ophthalmology society board members by comparing self-reported disclosures with industry-reported payments and examining characteristics linked to larger financial relationships.
methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we assessed all governance board members from American ophthalmology societies in December 2022. Board composition was identified from society websites, payment data from the Open Payments database, and conflict of interest (COI) policies from IRS Form 990 filings. Outcomes included concordance between self- and industry-reported disclosures, payment values, gender and subspecialty differences and academic characteristics.
resultsAmong 871 board members from 66 societies, 566 (65.0%) had industry-reported relationships, yet only 22 (2.5%) disclosed COIs on society websites. In 2022, 13 187 payments totaling $57.8 million were reported, with 79.5% related to research. Most societies reported internal COI policies (77.8%) and annual disclosure requirements (75.6%) via IRS filings. Men received significantly higher median payments than women ($217.5 vs. $43.3; p < 0.001). Retina specialists accounted for the largest share of payment value (55.3%), while paediatric ophthalmologists received the least (0.4%). Board members with research payments had higher academic productivity (median h-index: 19 vs. 8; p < 0.001).
conclusionsPublic reporting of board members' financial relationships on ophthalmology society websites was uncommon, likely reflecting differences in society-level disclosure practices rather than individual nondisclosure. These findings underscore an opportunity for societies to enhance transparency by adopting more consistent, transparent COI reporting practices in ophthalmology governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.